Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I wouldn't go as far as to say that there has to be a statute of limitations.

There is a point beyond which massive movement of populations is not only impractical but positively an abuse of people for crimes committed by their parents, grandparents or even further in the past.

On the other hand, the right to receive material compensation/reparations for crimes against humanity (and mass deportation/ethnic cleansing qualifies) should probably not expire.

The way the international community deals with refugees is completely wrong-headed in that they are assumed to be able to return home soon, penned in refugee camps and not allowed to integrate in their host country. The host country would be disturbed by the inflow of refugees so there should be international material aid to help the integration, as well as allowing refugees to emigrate to other countries.

It is possible that the refugees themselves choose to stay in refugee camps in the hopes that in this way they won't lose their claim to a "right of return". When you reach the 3rd generation of refugees you start having a serious problem in your hands, including a possible violation of human rights inflicted on the people born into refugee status.
For the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 15.
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
Having third-generation "stateless" Palestinians is a violation of their human rights.


A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Dec 9th, 2005 at 04:05:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:

Display:

Occasional Series